Bacon's Rebellion

CNN say’s 75 percent of the voters want to throw the bums out.

Well known political analyst Brewster Rockit goes one better:

“Don’t Let the Bums in.”

The ANTIPARTISAN VOTERS GUIDE – YEAR ONE

With Federal mid-term elections looming tomorrow and important contests facing voters in many states, please memorize The ANTIPARTISAN VOTERS GUIDE – YEAR ONE.

The ANTIPARTISAN VOTERS GUIDE for the inaugural year of the AntiPartisan campaign can be reduced to four simple rules:

1. If the incumbent is a Donkey Clan member, vote for the Elephant Clan candidate UNLESS there is a creditable non-aligned candidate* who can win.

2. If the incumbent is an Elephant Clan member, vote for the Donkey Clan candidate UNLESS there is a creditable non-aligned candidate* who can win.

3. If the office in question is ‘open,’ vote for the Donkey Clan member, UNLESS there is a creditable non-aligned candidate* who can win.

4. In the rare instance where there are two creditable non-aligned candidates* who can win and one is a lawyer, vote for the other one.

*‘Non-aligned candidates’ include all candidates who have formally and irrevocably renounced partisan Clan affiliation.

A BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE FOUR VOTERS GUIDE RULES

On the first two rules:

Most voters would feel better about themselves if they voted for someone they believed REALLY wanted to make the world a better place for someone besides the candidate, his / her Clan and the Clan’s financial backers. However, it is not prudent to waste votes on someone who has no chance of winning UNLESS the candidate is an avowed AntiPartisan candidate that supports Fundamental Transformations. In this case, every vote WILL count, even if the candidate does not win.

On the third rule:

Voting for the Donkey Clan candidate in open contests will avoid the GRIDLOCK that would result from a Donkey Clan administration and Elephant Clan legislature at the Federal level. Citizens of the US do have two years to waste on more governance gridlock.

One should not worry that a single Clan would control both administration and legislature. The goal, for reasons spelled out below, is Transformation, NOT gridlock. Voting out ALL the Clan-aligned incumbents will send a clear enough message that Business-As-Usual is not an acceptable strategy.

On the fourth rule:

Shakespear stated the proper strategy with respect to lawyers and he was centuries ahead of the most egregious problems caused by ‘the bar.’ However, the Bard’s strategy must be broadened to reflect 21st century reality:

Society must evolve to rely the actions of citizens, not the actions of agents, surrogates and unaccountable / unresponsive ‘representatives.’

With respect to governance, citizens must have representatives who understand the need for solutions that meet the needs of the vast majority, NOT representatives who are trained in the art of advocacy for client that are, by definition, WRONG HALF THE TIME.

It is clear that the enlightened interest of the vast majority of citizens INCLUDES respecting the legitimate interests of ALL minorities.

Note: These rules reflect the view voters in ‘swing districts’ as documented by “In Swing Districts, Old is Out and New is In: Seniority no longer prized as more voters demand results.” WaPo 15 October 2010 Page A-1. The key problem will come from entrenched candidates.

Some suggest term limits would address the problem of entrenched Clan candidates. Term limits are nothing more than an excuse to postpone Fundamental Transformations in governance structure.

It is the STRUCTURE that is the problem. It matters far less WHO is in office.

Within a transformed governance structure, term limits would be an integral component of any fair the system. That is not because term limits remove dead wood but because they encourage office holders to change venues, change perspectives and change Estates.

In addition, term limits would provide an incentive for those with good ideas and initiative to move up – from Community manager to Regional cabinet member to MegaRegional legislator to Continental chief executive – even it they do not change Estates.

EMR

I’ve been pretty tough on my alma mater in the Bacon’s Rebellion blog, but I’m detecting positive auras and penumbra emanating from Charlottesville these days. In a recent speech, Meredith Woo, dean of the College of Arts & Sciences at the University of Virginia, said some surprising things. First, she extolled the value of “virtue and character” — concepts that I thought had largely died out in Higher Education as hopelessly antiquated, bourgeois and politically incorrect. It’s good to know that someone still champions them.

Further, Woo indicated a willingness to make the kind of hard choices that leading universities must make in order to constrain costs while also pursuing excellence. Reading between the lines, I see her taking a page out of the business playbook. UVa, she seems to say, should reallocate resources from fields that generate a return on investment to fields that generate a higher rate of return.

As we remap the intellectual strengths of the College, we also need to make choices about the areas—or subfields—that need to be accentuated and nurtured, as we prune weak or unnecessary branches. No university has every possible department and no department has every possible subfield. We will endeavor to be known for the fields and subfields—some old, some new—in which we have unquestionable strength.

Virginia universities as leaders in the 21st century free speech movement? Who woulda thunk it? Kudos to the new university presidents, Teresa Sullivan at the University of Virginia and Taylor Revely at William and Mary (replacing the smarmy William Casteen and odious Gene Nichol respectively) for taking stands against the banning of politically incorrect speech. How refreshing it is to have something good to say about the executive leadership of our top universities for a change!

Details come from this release by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., October 28, 2010—This week, the University of Virginia (UVa) confirmed that it had eliminated the last of its policies that unconstitutionally restricted the free speech of students and faculty members. While more than two-thirds of the nation’s colleges maintain policies that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech, UVa is now a proud exception, having fully reformed four speech codes. UVa has now earned a coveted “green light” rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

“President Teresa Sullivan and her staff should be commended for making these simple but important changes to guarantee the First Amendment rights of students and faculty members at the University of Virginia,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “Within three months of taking office, President Sullivan has overseen the transformation of UVa from a school that earned FIRE’s worst ‘red light’ rating for restricting protected speech to our highest ‘green light’ rating. We hope that more colleges will follow UVa’s sterling example and reform their codes to protect free speech.”

FIRE began working with UVa in April 2010 after a FIRE lecture on free speech at UVa, which was hosted by UVa student groups Students for Individual Liberty and Liberty Coalition. FIRE detailed objections to UVa’s speech codes at the time in a letter to Dean of Students Allen W. Groves on April 7. UVa student Virginia Robinson, a 2010 FIRE Summer Intern, also helped persuade UVa to reform its speech codes.

First, Dean Groves reformed UVa’s “Just Report It!” “bias reporting” system to promise students that protected speech will not be “subject to University disciplinary action or formal investigation” even if it is reported. Then, Assistant Vice President for Information Security, Policy, and Records Shirley Payne removed unconstitutional language from a policy prohibiting Internet messages that “vilify” others and mailing list messages that are “inappropriate.”

Finally, UVa’s Women’s Center confirmed that it had removed two policies with unconstitutional examples of “sexual harassment” from its website. The examples stated that “jokes of a sexual nature,” “teasing,” and even mere “innuendo” constituted sexual harassment. The policies further suggested that simple flirting could be sexual harassment if it was not “wanted and mutual,” and that if a person felt “disrespected,” their experience “could indicate sexual harassment.”

UVa joins its fellow Virginia public institution The College of William & Mary (W&M) in an elite group of 13 “green light” schools. W&M earned its “green light” in October 2009. FIRE is now turning its attention to three more Virginia public universities, including George Mason, which has a “red light” policy, and James Madison and Virginia Tech, which have “yellow light” policies that threaten free speech. …

The Obama administration has doled out a record amount of college loans this year to help students cope with the affordability crisis in college tuitions. Meanwhile, college tuitions became even more unaffordable. Gee, do you think there could be a connection?

Uncle Sam gave out $28.2 billion in Pell grants to students in the 2009-2010 school year, almost $10 billion more than the previous year. Since taking office, President Obama has increased spending on student aid by nearly 50%, to $145 billion total year, reports the Wall Street Journal.

“But college affordability remains a problem,” says writer Stephanie Banchero. Gee, do ya think? From 2000 to 2010, tuition and fees at four-year institutions increased an average of 5.6% faster than the inflation rate. Apologists for higher ed blame cutbacks in state appropriations, which declined 5% in 2009-2010. “There’s only so much cutting you can do before institutions suffer in fundamental ways,” weeps Terry Hartle, an official with the America Council on Education, a higher-ed lobbying group.

Cutting? Did the man say “cutting?” Higher ed has been one of the great growth industries of the 2000s. In a quick Internet search, I failed to turn up long-term historical data on higher education revenues, but I did uncover some figures covering the school years between 2003/4 and 2006/07 from the National Center for Education Statistics. During those three years, which appear to be representative of later years, total operating expenditures for all U.S. institutions of higher education increased 16.0% (in real, inflation adjusted dollars) over that three-year span.

Where did the money go? Here are the spending categories that came out ahead:

Instructional wages and salaries — 16.8%
Auxiliary enterprises — 17.8%
Institutional support — 19.0%
Academic support — 19.9%
Student services — 20.6%
Operations & Maintenance — 25.4%

Here were the relative losers:

Public service — 13.5%
Research — 11.7%
Scholarships & fellowships — 9.6%

Four of the most administration-intensive categories — institutional support, academic support, student services, operations & maintenance — raked in the most money. (For a definition of the categories, see “Trends in College Spending,” pages 19-20.) In other words, those higher tuition payments and bigger college loans are going largely to expand higher ed bureaucracies. But don’t worry, faculty members appear to be well taken care of. As for making college more affordable through scholarships and fellowships, who do you think colleges exist for? The students? Get real.

When higher ed spokesmen whine about “hardship” and “cuts,” they’re talking about the bitter, cruel, punishing years when expenditures increase only 1% or 2% faster than the general inflation rate. The faculty and administrators in the world of higher ed are one of the most protected classes in the American economy. No wonder the campus crew is overwhelming Democrat and liberal — they are the beneficiaries of one of the most expansive income transfer schemes in the nation. And who is paying for it? We, the taxpayers… We, the parents of college students… And the college grads who enter the working world with massive student loans.

Through the mechanism of runaway college tuitions, Middle America is subsidizing an intellectual elite that trashes our values, mocks our way of life, advocates the politics of wealth redistribution and transforms our children into a 21st century version of indentured servants. Tuition payers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!

I hate Virginia’s senseless love of Dillon’s Rule. As Baconators know, Dillon’s Rule is a century old legal philosophy which holds that localities have no inherent political power since locality rights are not specified in the US Constitution. The vast majority of states have diluted Dillon’s Rule by overtly granting localities some level of home rule. Virginia has bucked the trend and remained one of the staunchest adherents to an undiluted implementation of Dillon’s Rule.

“Young Gun” Congressman Eric Cantor could see his blossoming political career grow even bigger next Tuesday if Republicans win control of the House of Representatives where Cantor serves House Minority Whip.

Some 116 seats are in play and pundits are betting on a GOP victory with Democrats keeping the Senate. If that happens, Cantor, 7th District Congressman and darling of the Richmond business elite, could become the next House majority leader. In that position, reports The Wall Street Journal, he would be in “the second most powerful post in that chamber behind the speaker. And he could be Barack Obama’s worst nightmare.”

Should that happen, Cantor has vowed to become a truth squad and ethics disciplinarian against President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Cantor has the endorsement of the Richmond Times-Dispatch owned by Media General where Cantor’s wife, Diana, serves as a director (just coincidental, the TD reminds us).

Yet Cantor has been taking a few lumps. The increasingly powerful Tea Party is clearly anti-Cantor, claiming that he’s just another big-spending Main Street Republican. His refusal to debate his opponents raises questions about his newly-found populism.

Plus, Cantor, 47, may be one of the few Congressmen ever to get drubbing in a New York Times Book Review article. In an assessment of his book “Young Guns” that he co-wrote with two fellow Republican Congressmen, Cantor notes that both Democrats and Republicans agree that health care is in need of fixing.

“Well great,” reviewer Christopher Caldwell wrote Sunday, “But for years now Republicans discussing the availability and cost of health care have been like a kid who, when asked why he hasn’t cleaned up his room, replies, “I was just about to!”

Not wanting to risk debates, Cantor risks come ugly campaign scenes. One happened Monday in Louisa where he appeared in a small coffee shop, supposedly to meet voters.

One man attending was John Taylor, a member of the Louisa County Democratic Committee and backer of Rick Waugh, Cantor’s Democratic opponent. Taylor and two others were asked to leave the coffee shop, told that it was sudenly “private property.” County police then subdued Taylor, as can be scene in this video shot by his son with his cell phone.

Events like these raise questions about the decorum of the man who would be in such a powerful position on Capitol Hill. If Cantor says he wants to debate voters, as he did emphatically during his “Young Guns” book tour, he should do so and not hide behind GOP gatekeepers, a newspaper where his wife has influence and a rural police department.

Peter Galuszka

At about this time in just seven days the polls will start closing.

This evening strong front is blowing in from the heartland.

Which way are the tea leaves blowing?

Today a CNN.com poll (all-be-it a ‘non scientific’ one) has a stunning 84 percent saying it is time to scrap the two party system.

If the Donkey Clan and the Elephant Clan split the 16 percent who are satisfied with the current canted playing field and a number equal to either of the ‘major’ parties is divided among anarchist, tea partyers and libertarians, one could hope that it still leaves over three quarters of the 90,000 who registered an opinion in favor of something REALLY NEW.

AntiPartisanism?

Also on CNN.com, John P. Avlon asks: “Sick of Dems?, GOP?” and suggests “There is Hope.” Avlon provides a nice overview of who is running for what OUTSIDE the two clan monopoly game.

Even the current president is not endorsing all those running under the Donkey Clan flag.

Charlie Cook suggests that ‘the wave has crested,” the tide has turned. Could all that money dredged up by the supremes and turned into endless ads just make citizens mad at the status quo?

The Sunday WaPo story on Page 1 A(“A Movement Without a Compass’) provides, data and graphics on ‘the tea party.’ The WaPo Sunday Magazine profiles a bus of tea partyers from Dayton, Ohio to Glen Beck’s rally and back. Both document that the tea party is not a ‘party’ at all.

The title: The Anger of Ignorance fits like a glove.

Today, Tom Toles has voters trapped in a car between walls labeled ‘Democrats’ and ‘Republicans.’

Even C-Dog is advising against voting for incumbents.

There is hope.

In the context of instant communication, there is no reason that the wind – and the tide – cannot change as quickly as the weather.

Perhaps, citizens are not as dumb as pandering politicians have been counting on them to be.

EMR

For those who do not have time to read “AntiPartisan Voters Guide” as revised, here is THE BOTTOM LINE in 500 words, more or less.

Over the past 200 years human’s have evolved economic, social and physical systems that depend on competition and consumption in the pursuit of safety and happiness.

The practical result has been to maximize consumption (aka, Mass OverConsumption) in order to optimize short-term profit. This strategy is justified on the assumption that it assures citizens access to HEALTH, SAFETY and WELFARE.

How has that worked for Homo sapiens?

For the most materially fortunate humans to every walk the Earth, especially those living in the most powerful and consumptive nation-state that has ever existed, the answer is:

NOT WELL.
HEALTH – Not well based on performance and cost of the health delivery system as measured by treatment outcomes, longevity, benefit distribution equity and citizen actions in support of their own health.

SAFETY – Not well based on ongoing wars, global terrorism, crime, incarceration rates and random aggression or based on food security, water quality, drug resistant pathogens and other parameters.

WELFARE – Not well based on the widening Wealth Gap and on measures of happiness compared to other nation-states that consume less per capita and rely less on unregulated competition.

Globally, the sustainability of human activity does not look promising when judged by parameters such as:

● Resources conservation / consumption (depletion) – humans are reaching or exceeding Peak Supply of petroleum, rare metals, rare gases, marine animals and other resources

● Energy consumption – dysfunctional generation, distribution and consumption

● Food production – topsoil loss, fossil water depletion, mal-distribution and waste of fresh water

Of primary concern is dysfunctional human settlement patterns which drive Mass OverConsumption and are the root cause of:

● The Mobility and Access Crisis
● The Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis, and
● The Helter Skelter Crisis

THE BOTTOM LINE

On a small planet with Global economic, social and physical interconnections, GROSS INEQUITY at the Community-, SubRegional-, Regional-, MegaRegional- and continental-scales OR between ethnic and religious groups is NOT sustainable.

All citizens must have the opportunity to prosper based on effort, ability and acceptance of responsibility for their actions – individual and collective. Success cannot be based on gambling, happenstance and inheritance or on inequitable distribution of resources and opportunity.

Avoiding Collapse of civilization as-it-has-evolved and the survival for Homo sapiens comes down to understanding that:

In a ‘flat’ world with:

● wide-spread literacy,

● Instant communications / information dissemination, and

● Wide distribution of weapons of mass destruction / massive stockpiles of weapons of conventional destruction / ubiquitous access to weapons of inter-personal destruction:

There is no alternative but to make Fundamental Transformations of governance structure. These transformations can facilitate evolution of Fundamental Transformation of humans settlement patterns and of economic systems. These three Transformations are imperative if citizens are to achieve a sustainable trajectory for their civilization.

The question remains:

Will the genetic proclivities toward competition, acquisition, consumption and xenophobia that got Homo sapiens to this point in their evolution prevent the emergence of an Urban society with a sustainable trajectory?

EMR

With only nine days until the election, EMR re-posted “The AntiPartisan Voting Guide” with corrections and changes suggested by those who read the original post on 8 October.

There is reason to believe that AntiPartisanism has the potential to take root.

There is the press coverage cited in the revised post, as well as coverage of voter positions in several specific races that support AntiPartisanism.

Today, WaPo had an important front page stories on The Anger of Ignorance voters in both Section A and in Outlook.

And then there is this from a weekly paper:

“Dear Congress Member:

“The purpose of this letter is to explain to you why I am not going to vote for you.

“If you are presently a member of either chamber, and you are running for re-election, I will vote for the person who is running against you. …”

The reasons the letter writer gives for not voting suggest the author is one of those in the grasp of The Anger of Ignorance. However, the fact that citizens do not understand the governance structure or what the issues really are is further proof of the need for AntiPartisanism.

EMR

The ANTIPARTISAN VOTERS GUIDE – YEAR ONE

With Federal mid-term elections less than ten days away and important contests facing voters in many states, it is time for The ANTIPARTISAN VOTERS GUIDE – YEAR ONE.

After analyzing parameters, principles and strategies, The ANTIPARTISAN VOTERS GUIDE for the inaugural year of the AntiPartisan campaign can be reduced to four simple rules:

1. If the incumbent is a Donkey Clan member, vote for the Elephant Clan candidate UNLESS there is a creditable non-aligned candidate* who can win.

2. If the incumbent is an Elephant Clan member, vote for the Donkey Clan candidate UNLESS there is a creditable non-aligned candidate* who can win.

3. If the office in question is ‘open,’ vote for the Donkey Clan member, UNLESS there is a creditable non-aligned candidate* who can win.

4. In the rare instance where there are two creditable non-aligned candidates* who can win and one is a lawyer, vote for the other one.

*‘Non-aligned candidates’ include all candidates who have formally and irrevocably renounced partisan Clan affiliation.

A BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE FOUR VOTERS GUIDE RULES

On the first two rules:

Most voters would feel better about themselves if they voted for someone they believed REALLY wanted to make the world a better place for someone besides the candidate, his / her Clan and the Clan’s financial backers. However, it is not prudent to waste votes on someone who has no chance of winning UNLESS the candidate is an avowed AntiPartisan candidate that supports Fundamental Transformations. In this case, every vote WILL count, even if the candidate does not win.

On the third rule:

Voting for the Donkey Clan candidate in open contests will avoid the GRIDLOCK that would result from a Donkey Clan administration and Elephant Clan legislature at the Federal level. Citizens of the US do have two years to waste on more governance gridlock.

One should not worry that a single Clan would control both administration and legislature. The goal, for reasons spelled out below, is Transformation, NOT gridlock. Voting out ALL the Clan-aligned incumbents will send a clear enough message that Business-As-Usual is not an acceptable strategy.

On the fourth rule:

Shakespear stated the proper strategy with respect to lawyers and he was centuries ahead of the most egregious problems caused by ‘the bar.’ However, the Bard’s strategy must be broadened to reflect 21st century reality:

Society must evolve to rely the actions of citizens, not the actions of agents, surrogates and unaccountable / unresponsive ‘representatives.’

With respect to governance, citizens must have representatives who understand the need for solutions that meet the needs of the vast majority, NOT representatives who are trained in the art of advocacy for client that are, by definition, WRONG HALF THE TIME.

It is clear that the enlightened interest of the vast majority of citizens INCLUDES respecting the legitimate interests of ALL minorities.

Note: These rules reflect the view voters in ‘swing districts’ as documented by “In Swing Districts, Old is Out and New is In: Seniority no longer prized as more voters demand results.” WaPo 15 October 2010 Page A-1. The key problem will come from entrenched candidates.

Some suggest term limits would address the problem of entrenched Clan candidates. Term limits are nothing more than an excuse to postpone Fundamental Transformations in governance structure.

It is the STRUCTURE that is the problem. It matters far less WHO is in office.

Within a transformed governance structure, term limits would be an integral component of any fair the system. That is not because term limits remove dead wood but because they encourage office holders to change venues, change perspectives and change Estates.

In addition, term limits would provide an incentive for those with good ideas and initiative to move up – from Community manager to Regional cabinet member to MegaRegional legislator to Continental chief executive – even it they do not change Estates.

THE TOP PRIORITY

The top priority for Fundamental Transformation of governance structure is NOT to end wars, balance budgets, eliminate trade deficits, create jobs, support renewable energy, reverse environmental degradation, address climate change, fix Social Security, provide adequate health care, reform the criminal justice system, transform education processes, end monopolies and inequitable subsidies, solve the Mobility and Access Crisis, solve the Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis, solve the Helter Skelter Crisis or even cure Mass OverConsumption.

The TOP priority of Fundamental Transformation of governance structure is to set in motion an evolution of governance so that there is match between the structure of Agencies and the economic, social and physical reality in 2010.

Matching governance structure with reality requires that Agencies exist for EACH of the nine organic components of human settlement from the Cluster to the Community (4), from the SubRegion to the MegaRegion (3) and from the continent to the planet (2). That will allow for the evolution of THE functional governance imperatives:

The level of control and responsibility must be at the level of impact.

When there are multiple levels of impact, responsibility must be SHARED in an equitable manner.

The ‘biggest’ Agency does NOT control JUST BECAUSE it has a larger jurisdiction or is ‘higher’ in the overall governance structure.

The closer an Agency is to the subject of Agency action, the better.

The closer the citizens who elect the Agency are to the subject of Agency action, the better.

There must evolve governance procedures that respect citizen interests at smaller scales of governance without endangering the interests of citizens at larger scales of governance. The principles that evolve should reflect the universal imperative of sustainability – to meet citizens current needs without jeopardizing future generations ability to meet their needs.

These imperatives for the allocation of governance responsibility are no more radical than:

● “The king does not have the ONLY say” was in 1215,

● “There are THREE Estates” was in 1302,

● “The Crown cannot UNILATERALLY declare a tax on tea” was in 1773, or

● “Of the people, by the people and for the people’ was in 1776

New scales of governance Agencies and new r
elationships between governance Agencies are essential for civilization to achieve a sustainable trajectory.

The root problem is not BIG government. The problem is BAD governance structure.

The dysfunction of scale in managing society does not end with Agencies,. Big, unaccountable Enterprises and Institutions are just as detrimental to citizens and Households as Big, unaccountable Agencies.

While it is true that a growing number of Citizens do not trust ‘Big’ government, they do not REALLY trust ANY level of government as currently structured. Many believe any change will just make things worse. The first step is broad citizen support for to Fundamentally Transform the governance structure.

AND THEN WHAT?

Once there exists a rational set of Agencies and a rational distribution of governance responsibilities, THEN it will be possible to end the wars, balance budgets, eliminate trade deficits, create jobs, support renewable energy, reverse environmental degradation, address climate change, fix Social Security, provide adequate health care, reform the criminal justice system, transform education processes and solve the Mobility and Access Crisis, the Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis or the Helter Skelter Crisis.

Citizens will come to understand that Mass OverConsumption is NOT sustainable and that the Wealth Gap must be closed. Some suggest that a more complex governance structure will slow decisions and thwart ‘growth.’ Pardon me? It is excessive consumption and the looming reality of Peak Resources that has placed civilization as-it-is-currently-known in jeopardy. More equitably distributing governance responsibility will increase the number of citizens involved but it need not slow down decisions where the cost and benefits of action are clear and those impacted have a voice.

To achieve equitable distribution of resources, all citizens must have the opportunity to prosper based on effort, ability and acceptance of responsibility for their actions – individual and collective. Success cannot be based on gambling, happenstance and inheritance for the reasons spelled out at the conclusion of this Perspective.

In the new context, Agencies can work with the other three Estates – Enterprises, Institutions and Citizens / Households – to insure that ALL Citizens have the opportunity to be happy and safe AND evolve a sustainable trajectory for civilization.

A sustainable trajectory for civilization will require:

● A Global and continental Balance of consumption with resource regeneration

● Optimizing MegaRegional, New Urban Regional and SubRegional Resilience

● Achieving relative Balance at the Community, Village, Neighborhood and Cluster scales.
With respect to the imperative of ‘sustainability’ See Chapter 23 of The Shape of the Future.

EVOLVING AWAY FORM A TWO CLAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

The two currently dominate political Clans in the US have perfected the art of achieving a 50.5 percent ‘majority.’ This state of affairs does not meet the needs of ANY cohort of citizens or their Organizations – including the leaders of the Clan that won the last election.

The ‘two party’ system may have made sense when the vast majority of the humans in the US were not CITIZENS and they were:

● Illiterate

● Had no right or opportunity to participate in the political process

● Made a living as subsistence farmers, indentured servants or slaves

● Participated in Regional agrarian societies with mercantile / colonial supply chains

● Were unconstrained by natural resources (aka, Natural Capital) because resources were effectively ‘infinite’ in relationship to the population and per capita consumption at the time

● It took a week for information to get from northern Massachusetts to southern Geogia.

Under these conditions, the two Clan system allowed for a articulation of ‘clear-enough’ alternatives that guided part-time governance practitioners who met and acted in isolation from the majority of the citizens they represented. In an agrarian society, governance practitioners acted on a narrow spectrum of issues that reflected the far more simple economic, social and physical context of society.

In 2010 the VAST MAJORITY of the humans in the US are:

● CITIZENS with the right, duty and opportunity to participate in the governance process

● Illiterate – a growing number have advanced educations

● Securing their livelihood within a complex, Global Urban society with Global competition and a Global supply chain

● Constrained by per capita consumption because humans have reached and / or exceed Peak Resources and not JUST Peak Petroleum.

● Information transfer is instantaneous

Compounding these profound differences, there are a bewildering array of new factors to consider at every level of economic, social and physical activity in the Global, Urban society.

In addition, there are generations of Myths and misconceptions concerning what constitutes the best interest of citizens / Households and their Organizations in the economic, social and physical spheres.

Finally, in an Urban society there are more community (small ‘c’) responsibilities and fewer personal rights, the exercise of which turn out to be in the best interest of the citizens, their Households and their Organizations.

To advocate “Originalism” with respect to governance structure is to condemn citizens to conflict and Collapse as noted in The Bottom Line at the conclusion of this Perspective. One starts with the Wealth Gap and moves quickly to terrorism. See Aftershock by Robert Reich.

Wishing for ‘the good old days when things were simple’ is as intelligent as wishing to be 16 years old again. It is time to move beyond the two Clan political system.

EVOLVING A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE TO MATCH THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL COMPLEXITY OF CONTEMPORARY HUMAN EXISTENCE.

The current ‘three level’ governance structure of the US (Federal / State / Municipal) reflects the reality of 1784 when Thomas Jefferson outlined the parameters that became the basis for the Northwest Ordinances adopted by the Continental Congress. Since that time citizens of the US have experienced a profound transformation.

The transition from an Agrarian society in 1784 – and in 1800 – to and Urban society in 2010 has been documented by Peter Drucker (The Age of Discontinuity) and others as the most dramatic transformation in the 220,000 (+/-) year existence of Homo sapiens. See resources cited in End Note Seven of the Prologue to The Shape of the Future.

The 210 year transformation in the US can be summarized as follows:

1800: The Countryside (including extensive ‘wilderness’ beyond a ‘frontier’) supported 95 percent of the population. This cohort was engaged in the production of food and fiber – many were subsistence farmers, indentured servants, slaves and hunter /gathers AND,

In 1800 a few scattered, compact Urbansides supported 5 percent of the population. This cohort relied primarily on Urban activities for their livelihood.

2010: There are now 70 large, complex Urbansides (the Cores of the largest 70 New Urban Regions) where 85 percent of the population of the US live and work. (Fifty-six of the New Urban Regions are agglomerated in 11 MegaRegions) AND,

In 2010 the Countryside (with no ‘frontier’ and no true ‘wilderness’) supports 15 percent of the population. Most of the Countryside population resides in smaller-scale Urban agglomerations WITHIN the Countryside or in Urban Households scattered across the Countryside. Less than 5 percent of the US population is directly involved
in the production of food, fiber and other NonUrban activities. There are no slaves, no indentured servants, almost no substance farmers and even fewer hunter /gathers.

The primary activity of humans in the US can be summarized as follows:

In 1800 – NonUrban 95, Urban 5.

In 2010 – Urban 95, NonUrban 5.

A vast array of hunter gather societies supported the evolution of Homo sapiens for about 207,000 (+/-) years. The transformation from these hunter gather societies to a wide variety of agrarian societies evolved over the next 12,800 (+/-) years. These increasingly complex agrarian societies were supported by a tiny minority of citizens who lived in ever more complex Urban enclaves. As noted in The Shape of the Future, these Urban enclaves were the crucible in which contemporary civilization was forged.

The massive and rapid transformation from multiple agrarian societies with compact Urban enclaves (cities, villages and hamlets) to a complex, interdependent, Global, Urban society was accomplished in less than 200 years. This transformation was unprecedented and the impact is still largely misunderstood.

Based on unsupported, self-serving Myths, ‘leaders’ now expect citizens to get along in 2010 with the same three-level governance structure that existed in 1800.

How is the three level 1800 governance structure working for citizens? Not well.

The Industrial Revolution has Urbanized human society as documented in Chapters 1 and 2 of The Shape of the Future. The Industrial Revolution did not exert full impact on the settlement pattern or economic and social structure of the US until after the Civil War ended in 1865. After a post Civil War industrialization boom and The Long Depression (1873 to 1896), the economic, social and physical fabric of the US was transformed by an Urban revolution of unprecedented scale.

To understand the roots and dynamics of the Urban Revolution from 1800 to 2010 in addition to The Shape of the Future and TRILO-G see, at a minimum: Guns, Germs, and Steel (Jared Diamond) The City in History (Lewis Mumford), Crabgrass Frontier (Kenneth Jackson) and (The Great Reset) Richard Florida. Also see over 100 resources cited in PART I of The Shape of the Future.

Fundamental transformation in society must be reflected in Fundamental Transformation in governance structure. As Thomas Jefferson noted:

“I am not an advocate of frequent changes in laws and constitutions but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the process of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change … institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.”

(Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40)

Can anyone in good faith suggest that far more changes have already occurred than Jefferson believed were required to necessitate fundamental changes?

THE BOTTOM LINE

On a ‘flat’ earth with Global economic, social and physical interconnections, gross inequity at the Community, SubRegional Regional, MegaRegional and continental scales or between ethnic and religious groups is not sustainable. As noted above:

All citizens must have the opportunity to prosper based on effort, ability and acceptance of responsibility for their actions – individual and collective. Success cannot be based on gambling, happenstance, inheritance or on inequitable distribution of resources and opportunity.

It comes down to this:

Avoiding Collapse of Civilization as-it-has-evolved and the survival for Homo sapiens requires and understanding that:

In a ‘flat’ world with:

● wide-spread literacy,

● Instant communications / information dissemination, and

● Wide distribution of weapons of mass destruction / massive stockpiles of weapons of conventional destruction / ubiquitous access to weapons of inter-personal destruction:

There is no alternative but to make Fundamental Transformations of governance structure. These transformations can facilitate evolution of Fundamental Transformation of humans settlement patterns and of economic systems. These three Transformations are imperative if citizens are to achieve a sustainable trajectory for their civilization.

The question remains:

Will the genetic proclivities toward competition, acquisition, consumption and xenophobia that got Homo sapiens to this point in their evolution prevent the emergence of an Urban society with a sustainable trajectory?

EMR

Alert! Alert! Danger! Danger! Bacon is playing with fire!

Once again, I am experimenting with new media forms– this time making a brief animated “movie” based on topics debated on this blog, vivid proof that I have too much time on my hands. All my prejudices are on display. I make no effort to be fair and balanced. I don’t bother to fact check. But I do throw in a few yucks. Enjoy.

(If you can come up with better one-liners, I will plug them into the script and re-publish the movie.)

Popular histories about the Confederate States of America can be dodgy, as a recent controversy over a school textbook approved for Virginia fourth-graders shows.

American liberals are big fans of the European welfare state. They point to European models of national health care, rich pensions and generous unemployment benefits as worthy of emulation in the United States. Europeans may not make as much money as Americans, the liberals say, but they have created a more humane way of life.

What you don’t hear from the American left these days is much acknowledgment that the Europeans are backpedaling as fast as they can. There is a reason that transportation and oil-refinery unions have been striking in France and government workers are rioting again in Greece. When Greece nearly defaulted on its national debt last year, governments got a glimpse of what would happen when the money ran out, and they began enacting some of the toughest austerity measures of the post-World War II era.

While France and Greece have grabbed the headlines – protesters setting things on fire makes a visual the media can’t resist – the most important case study in austerity economics may be the United Kingdom. Taking out the carving knife, the newly elected Conservative Party government is dissecting government with a vigor not seen since Margaret Thatcher’s heyday.

The secret to restoring the United Kingdom’s economic vitality, says Prime Minister David Cameron, is to slash public spending and reinvigorate the private sector. The Conservative Party plan calls for a combination of spending cuts, tax increases and targeted tax cuts for business that would reduce Britain’s borrowing by $180 billion a year by 2015 – a fiscal consolidation equivalent to 6.2 percent- of that year’s expected gross domestic product (GDP).

The draconian measures defy the Keynesian doctrine that the best way to jump-start the economy during an economic downturn is to increase deficit spending. While deficit spending may give the economy a short-term jolt, evidence is accumulating that large ongoing deficits cause serious long-term damage, especially when the national debt is already high. Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff have argued famously that when the national debt of advanced nations exceeds 90 percent of GDP, economic growth tends to slow considerably. A more recent study published by the World Bank identified a tipping point at a 77 percent debt-to-GDP ratio.

With a 2010 debt-GDP ratio of 72.7 percent, the United Kingdom is near that tipping point. (The United States is well past it.) Preaching that the nation faces an “age of austerity,” Mr. Cameron has called upon Britons to show restraint (no riots, please) and adopt the spirit of self-sacrifice their forebears displayed during the two world wars. Expecting to sack more than 600,000 government jobs, Conservatives are gambling that whacking state spending in a weak economy will restore market confidence and encourage private businesses to step up their investment and hiring.

Because government spending accounts for such a large share of the economy in some depressed regions of the United Kingdom, Conservatives hope to prime the pump of private investment by pumping funds into regional industry clusters. The track record of such industrial policy is not encouraging, but politically, it may be necessary to prop up the economy beyond the confines of the prosperous London metropolitan area. With the exception of the regional stimulus spending, however, the United Kingdom is hewing to a budget discipline that U.S. conservatives can only dream about.

No political figure of Mr. Cameron’s stature has spoken as honestly to Americans, nor has anyone prominent – outside of Wisconsin’s Republican Rep. Paul Ryan – offered a cost-cutting program as far-reaching. The House Republicans’ Pledge to America would roll back spending by roughly $100 billion a year, to pre-stimulus, pre-TARP levels. But to achieve budget balance over the course of an economic cycle would require spending cuts on the order of $1 trillion yearly. Meanwhile, the U.S. political class and its intellectual enablers remain in steadfast denial. Progressives such as Robert Reich and Paul Krugman argue that the United States needs more government spending, not less.

Americans should watch the outcome of the English experiment closely. Republicans likely will spend the next two years crossing swords with President Obama, a dogged defender of the leviathan state. The key electoral test will come in the presidential election of 2012. By then, the results of the English experiment should be in. Either it will be a model worth emulating or it will prove to be an economic and political failure. I’m betting austerity will pay off for the United Kingdom. I can only pray that the United States can embrace serious cost-cutting before the gravitational tug of our massive debt pulls the economy into oblivion.

(This column was published originally in the Washington Times.)